Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Then you agree that draws are not necessarily a negative. As to the statement: 'Though if it is possible to force a draw each and every game, the stated capture goal might be considered inconsequential or at the least merely an influence during the game.' If a game had the goal as the capture of a specific piece(like the King in Chess) and the player by either position or material was able to prevent this from occuring, the capture goal would still have an effect during the play of the game. Then if these subsequent draws were then evaluated by either material or position(creating a new win conditon), this capture goal may be inconsequential(un-attainable) or merely an influence(forcing the players toward the new win condition) during the game.
various remarks concerning draws description- Symmetrical Chess Collection http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf relevant excerpts p. 26-28 (first paragraph) ___________________________________________________ Note- Some remarks are admixed in context with the description of a game (Hex Chess SS) while other remarks are directed in a purely general manner.
Hi Rich, While I agree with some of what you say, I dont think chess has a draw issue at all. I took a quick look at all the chess games I played when I was active - very few draws. This seems to happen more in the GM level - the grandmaster draw (less than 20 moves) could easily be banned. And many well contested games that end in draws at proper completeion are actually quite interesting - I say just get rid of the draw offer for major tournaments/matches. Getting rid of Stalemate, 3 move repetition seems like a major step backwards so I would nt call them patches - more like deleting essential components. I am probably in the minority here defending orthodox chess but its probably because I am more interested in chess-like variants than most, and I was not too long ago a chess enthusiast.
Over 60% of chess tournaments are ending in draws on the highest level. That looks like a problem to me.
The 'Grandmaster Draw' is, by definition, a problem for grandmasters. I am not a grandmaster and most of my games are decisive. Therefore I do not have a problem.
I understand that it does - but are you a regular chess player? An insignificant amount of chessplayers: extremely talented, and very closely bunched in skill level, and with a lot of time to research / memorize a large amount of opening theory, play each other under the auspices of an at least somewhat corrupt organization - 60% end in draws . So what? ban the draw offer and motivate them to play fighting chess - that percentage will reduce to at least 45-50%. With that skill level, expertise and knowledge - no serious chess player will have a problem with this result. It would be nice if there was many chess variants close enough to chess that they were accepted by most chess players - then everyone would be playing in a chess variant tournament. I believe if chess is moved to a larger board, it would be difficult for HUMANs to attain the amount of chess theory of the 8x8 game. Chess is 'played out' not because it is flawed but because it became too successful.
Sofia rule, which you wrote of, apparently reduced the number of draws by less than 5%: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553 My question is, even if the number of draws ends up being 45-50% why is this still acceptable?
One can avoid draws in chess by playing against much stronger players. And if you do play a much stronger player and get a draw, chances are that you will be happy to have gotten it.
On a related note, I took another look at Navia Dratp recently. With its unbalance armies, and three ways to win it seems that draws are unlikely in that game. Even at the bare king level (Navias only) the two pieces would race towards the opposition's first rank and the one who won the race would win.
I think Chess is fine as is. If someone is disatisfied with it then there are certainly plenty of other variants to play. I still hope Navia Dratp will catch on someday. I think it is a fantastic variant and it should satisy the draw haters.
I am curious here regarding draws. Should we be viewing the solution to draws to be merely another specific game? Or, can we do something with how game conditions are scored over variants in general (start with a baseline) that would end up address possible draw issues with all them. You can have a default starting place, and variants are free to do this. Perhaps we could end up using a different default position than FIDE chess. How about we look to Shatranj for example, and what it had, and use that as the starting point? Maybe extend it some to account for more modern play. Just an idea here.
As a variant inventor, I try to come up with a game that plays as well as chess. Even though I have tried different avenues, my ultimate goal is to come up with a game that plays almost like chess but on a bigger board with a few new pieces. Obviously since its new, opening theory will be a complete restart and it will take a very long time before this game ever gets 'stale'.
With Titan Chess , I added many new pieces but I am very happy with the gameplay though I have to say it is a bit different from orthodox chess! I have tested this game thoroughly, and draws are much less likely in Titan Chess even though you can draw as in std chess.
However, I see no flaws in the original game (orthodox chess) and certainly have no problem with draws.
Perhaps, your see draws in chess as a problem, among other things because you like games with razor's edge win/loss conditions and changing parameters (like Fischer Random but more extreme with random pieces ).
So yes, chess cannot be changed - the game has already been made and too much people care about it. But if another very similar game catches on .. that is another story.
I can guarantee you that draws are not a problem for chess,
And neither are computers - (George! )
The original chess is Shatranj, and it had multiple victory conditions, including barring the king and stalemate as a win, provided only one side had their king barred. These rules were taken out when people thought the changes made to what we have with regular chess, would mean you would almost never draw. You also didn't have castling, which left the king in the middle of the board, vulnerable to being checkmated. I can also, through my playing with Near Chess, see that when you do what you do with the pawns by giving them extra mobility (2 spaces to start instead of one), it results in pawn structures that remain solid all the way through, which reduces the chances of creating uneven pawn structures that help to cause the endgame generating more pawn promotions. Also this, in addition giving the other pieces more mobility means that you have the firepower pieces getting out in front of the pawns, burning off faster, with less firepower left in the end game to bust up pawn structures more. All this leads to more draws. The end result was it was far less likely to have the draw conditions we have today, which are pushing around 60% on the highest levels of play. I would like to hear someone explain why draw rate of 60% or higher is a good thing, particularly people who are into variants and are willing to adopt whatever rules are needed to make an enjoyable game. I will suggest anyone here to download Near Chess and have the Zillions AI try it and see what happens when you move chess back closer to Shatranj than regular chess. I believe you get a lot less draws.
Several of us at CV, myself included, came to believe that it was harder to avoid a draw in Shatranj than it was to avoid a draw in chess due to that lack of fire power. I believe that was one of the reasons Joe Joyce created Modern Shatranj with more fire power than the original, that is, so it would be less drawish.
'... I would like to hear someone explain why draw rate of 60% or higher is a good thing ...'
I don't believe anyone has claimed it to be a good thing.
What I do not comprehend is why some think it to be a bad thing.
Between equally proficient opponents I would expect a high percentage of draws.
THREE DIFFERENT 'STALEMATE/BARE KING' SETS OF RULES!
THREE DIFFERENT 'STALEMATE/BARE KING' SETS OF RULES!!
THREE DIFFERENT 'STALEMATE/BARE KING' SETS OF RULES!!!
ENDGAME POSITION White: King c1, Knight e1 and Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | |///| |///| |///| |///|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 |///| |///| |///| |///| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | p |///| |///| r |///| |///|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 |/k/| |/K/| |/N/| |///| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
After 1.Nc2 check Rxc2 check, Black has won in Shatranj by the Bare King rule, which has only one stated exception. The Zillions Rule File for Shatranj (correctly) scores this game as a win for Black. Yesterday I posted this example on the Shatranj page, pointing out that 2.Kxc2 stalemate is a draw in two of my chess variants and a White victory in Wildebeest Chess.
Richard, when are you going to grasp the fact that there are no FIDE-approved rules for Shatranj? Our knowledge of Shatranj is based on a few written sources, representing a selection from possibly hundreds of regional variants. Chaturanga was dropped from the list of Recognized Variants here in 2005, because our collective knowledge of the game consisted of: 'We guess it had the same rules as Shatranj, more or less'. We were unable to 'Please comment here' after your [2008-04-14] post, because you apparently used a forbidden symbol in your thread title. We cannot properly evaluate your proposal until you write down your own complete set of rules. Also a few examples would be helpful.
Also you could clearly state where and why you disagree with: David Paulowich, R. Wayne Schmittberg, and Colin Adams, who wrote in 1999: 'If one player is reduced to a bare King (no other pieces), then he loses the game, unless he can immediately reduce his opponent to a bare King also (I would suggest that demonstrating that he can reduce his opponent to a bare King by a forced series of moves should also be allowed ...'
Rich Hutnik Posted: ---------------------------------- Well, the highest level of chess represents chess played at an optimal level, right? If it is drawing at that level, what impact does it have on the game? ---------------------------------- Drawing at that level simply demonstrates that both opponents are almost equally skilled. If a win is desired then it is the scoring that needs to be changed (even though I disagree on that too) . For example consider giving a draw less than 1/2 point . or scoring for the different types of draws. However, stalemate is one of the greatest 'features' in chess. Feature well utilized: even recently in a game between two GMs one player on his way to a loss played a tricky move which if not replied correctly would have led to stalemate. I like to give the boxing analogy of a knockout to checkmate. Most boxing matches between equally skilled opponents are actually draws - the scoring is so subjective you might as well call it that . Now if you want a decisive result between two players. How about this: in the event of a draw - the time control is changed to say something like 5min/12second increment and they play until someone wins. Changes to scoring and tournament rules can be adjusted to produce a winner in all cases if desired. Have you taken a look at Modern Shatranj? I believe it has all the rules you would like implemented. Perhaps a modified version of that game may be a good starting point .
If you want to liken Chess to Boxing, then if boxing were like chess, if there wasn't a knockout, the boxing match would end in a draw. Do you think this would be good for boxing? Can you name any other sport where this is so and why it is good for tournament play? Please present the case that have 60%+ of all chess matches ending in draws is good for chess as a sport. I would like to see the argument how it fosters growth. I would like to see the appeal to soccer and hockey having draws in them be shown how the Stanley Cup and the World Cup end in draws. Are there ANY other sports which end in draws? How about ones where if the entire thing ends in a draw, the defending champion retains their title. Does ANYTHING else besides Chess have this? Anyhow, if you want to declare a draw as a 'non-checkmate' ending to a chess match, then fine. But explain how having it end in 1/2-1/2 for both players resulting in the chess match not reaching a conclusion (except for the defending champ) actually helps chess grow as a game. I am interested hearing the argument how this actually fosters growth of chess. Not that it is 'well, we have bad leadership in the chess world, which is why it isn't growing'. I am asking if it helps chess grow in any way having the 19th century 1/2 to 1/2 for a draw for both sides.
I believe we can change the rules and come up with a truly fantastic variant (like Navia Dratp)... and yet still, it won't be popular (relatively) because it is 'intellectual' in spirit. That is why the late Donald Benge, creater of Conquest, advized me to never try to market a chess variant.
To further the analogy - Each round in boxing is like 1 game of chess. I had no idea that 60% of all chess MATCHES end in draws. How much games are played in each match? The solution to making chess have appeal like other sports has nothing to do with rules for draws . All you have to do is to come up with a match/tournament system that ALWAYS provides a winner. E.g. if a 6 game match is drawn then more games with reduced time controls. Kind of like the extra long tennis matches on tv. Soccer games that end in draws go to overtime. Chess matches/tournaments cant do that? I think you have to explain how two equally skilled players ending a game in a draw is bad for chess in general. At worst, it has no effect. If it is a decisive game you want - then let each 'game' in a tournament be a series of games with differing time controls until a winner is produced. btw - boxing organizations are notoriously corrupt too but it does not mean the rules of boxing needs to be changed just the organization needs to be. Perhaps, chess is not being marketed properly but this does not mean the rules have to be changed. Also by definition if you change the rules you are creating your own game so why not just call it another game and stick with that?
Intellectual games does better in Germany, the low countries, and Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, China. They do terrible in the US. The only new abstract game to make headway here is Blockus. Look at the uptake of GIPF games and the Korean game 'cafes'. Some German bars are stocked with various abstract games. The key seems to be whether a game become a social past time. If games has this social aspect then they will be played much more widely. Go and Xiangqi in china was like that, and still is to a degree.
In regard to the 'intellectual games' aspect, our local mall had a GameKeeper store. Fantastic! I loved it. Strategy games upon strategy games... Donald asked me to see if I could get his Conquest in there... I tried but to no avail. Why? Possibly because the manager knew what I didn't, that GameKeeper was going to be short lived. It is no longer there. The near by Build-a-Bear store continues to thrive... it appears that there is a much bigger market for stuffed animals than there is for games that stimulate our minds.
Our group of CV players is a small group. A group with keen minds. It would be nice if we were larger in number... oh, I still think draws have virtually nothing to do with the relatively low level of interest. After all, Chess was very big in Russia and neighboring countries at a time when it had very little interest over in the U.S. So I think it is a cultural thing. I think the introduction of video games, for example, has robbed us of many potential chess and CV players.
How about having some 'mutator' scoring system or Rules that can be applied on top of just about any group of chess variants, and if the game hardly ever doesn't end in draws, but checkmate, then these extra conditions don't matter. But, if it is more prone to certain conditions, then the scoring system can handle these rare exceptions? It is good to design games that are less drawish and more decisive, but if you have a popular game that is more draw-prone, why not differentiate the quality of the draws and account for them appropriately. In other words, you don't just have set over all conditions that have the same score, but you have more granularity. They do this now in chess anyhow, awarding 1/2 point to each player on a draw, and 1 point for a win. This is two scores. Why do multiple varieties of draws (non-checkmate ends) have to all have the same score? A reason why I am discussing this now is look at normal chess. What you see is that the multiple varieties of draws are all worth the same 1/2 point for BOTH players. Add that to the defending champion retaining title on a tie in score, and you are going to produce draws. Anyhow, this also goes to the person arguing for stalemate staying in the game. I will say that is fine, but why should it score 1/2-1/2 for both players (count as a draw?). What did the player who was stalemated exactly do? They get a draw due to the bungling of the other player, which does nothing to advance the ending of the results? How about awarding the player who stalemated their opponent 1/2 point, but their opponent doesn't get any points? It still hurts to mess up like that, but still respects the stalemate as a gotcha someone can mess up on.
In regards to draws and so on, I am proposing as a starting discussion point the Shatranj Extended Tournament Scoring (SETS) Rules. They are here: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSshatranjextend Please comment regarding this. Perhaps this, Braves and whatever else is out there can come together to come up with an effective scoring system, which will deal with the draw issues, and provide a better measure for how people do in a chess tournament.
Draws in Chess would not optimally be expected to be as infrequent as a Deadheat in thoroughbred horse racing, occurring less than 0.5% of the time. Neither should we require several sudden-death ''extended times'' to get an outcome 95% the time. Infrequent Draws are to be tolerated. The right technique, i.e. Rules-set tack-ons, to reduce Draws to acceptable level (usually 1% to 10%) depends on the game. Draws in Rococo might benefit from the following novelty, entailing strict 100-move limit: if no capture of Rococo King by move 100, either player may declare ''DRAW'' precisely at that milestone. It would be brand-new Draw criterion never used before. Many CVs have not determined requisite mating material, especially those CVs never yet played, even by inventors. If no one knows minimum mating material, that standard has to be used with extreme caution.
George, I think your comment here is worth discussing: Many CVs have not determined requisite mating material, especially those CVs never yet played, even by inventors. If no one knows minimum mating material, that standard has to be used with extreme caution. I believe because a bunch of CVs wander into the unknown in regards to what is or is not suitable mating material, I believe this is all the more important why there should be some method in place to make sure that, in event there is a draw, that at least be some way to insure that the end result isn't 1/2 - 1/2 for both players, amounting to nothing. How about, based on the SETS rules, you have it so one player either gets the 1/2 point draw advantage or they pick what side they be? Player can forfeit the decision on what side to play in exchange for 1/2 point, or pick whatever side they choose and their opponent gets the 1/2 point for the draw. Some people may argue, 'But but, there may be a bunch of draws in the game, so this gives the player whomever takes the 1/2 point an unfair advantage.' To this, can I ask, what does this say about a game, if doing this gives a player an unfair advantage for taking the 1/2 point? If this is the case, how about making a win worth 2 points instead? In light of a win being worth 4 times as much as a draw, would someone still want to play for a draw?
For us players below GM level, chances are that many subtle errors were made throughout the game. Your opponent is not playing perfect chess, so if you want to avoid draws just play better chess.
Instead of re-inventing rules that have worked for hundreds of years, simply become stronger at the game. That is my opinion.
As a side note, in my novel, Cosmic Submarine, there is the equivalent of the Desert Pub Chess (here at CV) played. There is always a winner. Reason: When there is a draw one player must concede, or both must eat a bowl of desert sand. The one who finishes first wins the game and the loser is sent off into the desert to die. Most players will concede, rather than face the life-threatening bowl of sand. Regardless, the score is always 1-0 or 0-1.
The 1/2 - 1/2 for a draw I believe is a mid-18th centuries addition to chess. Well, at least the time control is. So, it isn't like it has been around a lot. Anyhow, let me give you a headline here. Tell me if this makes chess more or less appealing to people who would consider it: With a Draw, Kasparov Keeps Title http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DD1138F934A15751C1A966958260 Why should a defending champion keep their title with a draw? Gary, please explain that to me. And answer me if this is more advantageous to getting people interested in chess. I ask it this way, as the issues with chess aren't simply draw. But, probably a bunch of major and minor things. If it is a list of things, then why not consider ALL things that may of had issues associated with them.
Gary, to address what I wrote early, I found out the first time a draw was given 1/2 point in a tournament match. It was in 1867: http://www.logicalchess.com/info/history/1800-1899.html 1867.09.01 1st time draws count as 1/2 point - Dundee International. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/steinitz.htm In September, 1867 Steinitz took second place in the Dundee International in England (won by Neumann). This was the first tournament in which draws were not replayed, but counted as a half a point. In the past, if a game was drawn, they replayed it. So, your comment about, 'playing chess as it had been played for hundreds of years' isn't exactly true for this invention, which is less than 150 years old. And, my take is this invention is wearing out of gas, and producing too many draws. In light of this, can you please defend that this is the optimal way chess should be played, if the invention is less than 150 years old? Can anyone here?
So now I looked at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess)
which addresses the draw issue. I don't mind #6 under the section entitled: 'Grandmaster draw problem.' Basically, it has been used for soccer (by FIFA) and is this:
'3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This system discourages draws since they would only be worth 2/3 of their current value.' Unlike BAP (mentioned below) there is no color bias.
The BAP system is a bit comical to me as some players have very keen Black Defensive Systems and would rather play Black anyway. That is how I was when I went to the World Open in 1980. I had a keen French Defense and therefore loved playing from the Black side of the board. I had no losses with the French, and just 1 draw with it. In my opinion, the BAP system is biased. Also, such a system would be bad in final rounds of a tournament.
At my level of play draws have yet to be an issue, even in correspondence games where players have several days to think.
If I needed to pick a anti-draw system, FIFA's 3-1-0 seems best to me.
I agree that draws aren't a problem. They aren't that frequent at subgrandmaster level and grandmasters can decide for themselves what suits them best. But for the record, I would suggest the following solution to this non-problem. In the Yugoslav Soccer Championship, draws led to overtime and penalties, but the penalties were shot before the overtime. Hence, the players knew whose interest it was to attack. Following that idea, how about a blitz with inverted colors giving half a point to the winner and a third of a point to the loser should the real game end in a draw?
I had discussed the idea to have a blitz game as a tie-breaker with some, and even more 'Chess purists' were against the idea. In a tournament for Chess960, where the current world champ took on someone else, they used blitz as a tie-breaker. I am in favor of that, or whatever else would work, that would resolve the tie at the end. I am not sure why anyone is in favor of the current system that is less than 150 years old personally. It was adapted when chess had been turned into a competitive sport in the middle of the 19th century (as documented here), and hadn't been changed since then. The current system that produces in the NY Times: 'Kasparov retains title on a draw' (this was from around 1990), one has to ask if this is a good thing or not. I would also go with the FIFA scoring also of 3-1-0, unless you want to give draw advantage. I believe the issue is from a SPORTS perspective, not the game, even if chess is producing 60%+ draws. By the way, how about this for a short system of running a tournament? Players alternate playing black and white until someone has won a game as black and a game as white? Perhaps set it for so many games, and use the tiebreaker system of blitz to resolve who the winner is. I know there are purists who complain about blitz, but one can argue about whether or not time control distorts chess anyhow. In order to have chess as a competitive sport, time control becomes needed. So, are people here in favor of 3-1-0 for tournament scoring, and the use of blitz as a tie breaker? You would use a coin toss to decide which side plays what. I am up for this. I am up for anything people will play that works, which doesn't produce headlines like: 'Kasparov regains title on a draw'. The issue is whether or not such a headline helps or hurts the growth of a game. It isn't that it is the answer, or a big part of the answer, but whether or not changing it would help more than it hurts. If this sounds good, maybe the CV community can start to use this for live tournaments.
To avoid rehashing stuff, read following, especially the article list at the end. http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4553 The question is how to incentive players to play for win in all circumstances? After all, a draw in pursuit of a win is no shame, but to not try at all is a letdown for all. For variant creators the question is what kind of rules encourages players to play for win?
Regarding the 3-1-0 flaw see:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4209
I am again thinking that since we are below the GM level, it might be best to keep the 1-0-1/2 system.
There is a Bruce Harper proposal that I like a lot. If there is a draw, a new game is played using the remaining clock times. If that game is drawn, a new game is played using remaining clock times, etc. Finally someone will win, even if by time default. That is great for over-the-board... but many who like to get the most out of their clock time would likely not like this. It would likely tend to speed chess up so that, in the event of a draw, a player would have some descent time for the next possible game. Harper's system doesn't seem meaningful to correspondence games.
I like Harper's approach. However, it might end up being that you might as well award the win to a player who has the most time on their clock.
Draws have to be lesser issue even in regular played-out Mad Queen. It is GMs' problem not ours. I still personally place Computer problem at the top. Actually, toward opposite goal of increasing Draw possibilities, Draws could have the same number of variants -- millions -- as CVs themselves. Draw by agreement, 3-fold repetition, 50-Move no pawn move or capture, insufficient material. Draw by Stalemate, Bare King. Draw by reaching set number of moves: 100, 80, 125, 75. Draw by (and here the new variants come in, to dodge or postpone other issues, keeping our comfort zones of wild imagination sans action): (1) time control parameters, e.g. 4 hours becomes a Draw (2) repetition of opening repertoire, say 20 moves and over having been played by others before (3) lack of beauty, i.e. uninteresting lines determined by judge-panel at move 20 (4) Instead of being prohibited, Mures' Braves' point two permits achieving Draw by placing King a Knight's move away from King. (There follows our regular more-thought-out blog-Comment.)
I like Harper's approach. However, it is not likely for awhile to have anything with Bruce Harper in IAGO, unfortunately. This being said, can I run this proposal by people? It is mean to be a variation on the blitz at the end of the tournament as a tie breaker. The final game, in event of the scores being even, would consist of a blitz game. The amount of time that both players have at start is six minutes. By some method (randomly or otherwise), one player is picked to enter in a bid on how much time they will give up from their six minutes to pick their color. They can choose to pass, and allow their opponent to pick the side with six minutes, or they can choose, in 15 or 30 second increments, bid to give up time (to get the choice to pick a side. From then on, the time the player picking a side chooses, would keep decreasing by the bids, until someone passes. At that point, that player would pick what side they will play, and have that much time to work with. Then you do the normal blitz game, with this time adjustment. This approach does add a bit of brinksmanship to the game, but is also mainly used as a balancing mechanism across just about all variants, particularly those where one side or another may have an advantage, but players are unable to tell for sure which side does. This bidding method could also be used for picking a game also. Winner of the bid gets that much time, and the game of their choice, and side of their choice. Their opponent gets the other. You could also bid turns this way with draw rights going to the opponent of the person bidding.
Both players would certainly want to avoid a draw. Of course, if one player had 40 minutes left and another had 5 minutes left, then the one with 40 could certainly play for a draw as he'd have a nice time advantage in the tie-break game. A flat time might be acceptable for correspondence games. For on-line real-time games however, there is often server lag and 6 minutes seems too quick.
I do like Bruce's approach also. However, it is done after EVERY draw, and not just done if the end result of the entire tournament was a draw. What I had suggested is a modification of what they did for the Chess960 tournament last year. I am suggesting players have a chance to bid time to see what side they play. If there is a case of there being one last game to decide, then this would be the best approach for that, particularly when dealing with variants where the favored side is unknown. There is a secondary pragmatic reason for looking for something else besides what Bruce Harper wants. In my attempts to have Seirawan Chess involved with IAGO, the response was very negative. The last email with him, going out at least in peaceful terms, was to wait on everything. The end result is that I don't see him wanting the variant community to use anything he is working on, until he gives the word. I am assuming his methods are his. How about this instead, that borrows a bit from him, but is unique? During the match, track how much time was left for each draw. If there is a tie score after it is done, add up all the times left and play two games, one white and one black, with the remaining time that was left. Count these scores. If still a tie, then do one last sudden death blitz, as I have descibed. In other words, rather than do an overtime after every draw, just do it at the end, if necessary.
For example, assume the following situation:
(1) players have 60 minutes each / that is a 2 hour game.
(2) at move 40 the game ends in a draw by stalemate
(3) player A used 35 minutes; player B used 40 minutes
(4) The tie-break game is set up and starts with 25 minutes for A and with 20 minutes for B.
(5) That game ends in a draw after 50 moves by perpetual check
(6) player A has 8 minutes left. Player B has 5 minutes left
(7) The crowd gathers around for the fast tie-break game.
(8) Player B gets in trouble and loses on time.
The 1-0 result is obtained within the 2 hours alloted for the round. While other players played 1 game in their 2 hours, some played 2 and some played 3. But 2 hour rounds remained 2 hours and there were no 1/2 - 1/2 results posted.
Anyone have a link to Harper's suggestion where he goes into it? An alternate approach I was laying out involved using a scoring system for game conditions, like SETS. This system could be used as a secondary system for tie-breaking purposes, if need be. My take is that just about ANY changes, no matter how minor and deviating from the way it is now, is going to be argued against. It stands a chance of being buried with the reason, 'Well, I don't think this issue is THE problem.' The end result is that if it could be part of the answer, it gets buried. If something faces multiple issues, it is possible that nothing changes or is fixed, because one issue alone doesn't resolve anything.
Excuse me, when writing an old suggestion how to reduce tactical draws (where material does not force a draw): Instead of only accepting or refuting a draw the opponent player should have the right to simply change the sides (because the suggestor obviously is convinced that would be no disadvantage). A draw should be possible only after at least one such a change of sides and a minimum of five moves following it.
http://www.chess.bc.ca/team.html
A quote from that site:' ... tested an anti-draw rule, in which each player had two hours at the start of the first game. If the first game was drawn, each player received 1/3 of a point, then a second game was played with colours reversed, using the remaining time. This continued until one player won, with the winner getting the other 1/3 of a point. '
So, I guess the way I recalled it deviated from reality. I gave someone a full-point, but the method was awarding 1/3 points? I think I prefer my all or nothing way as an anti-draw system.
Hey Gary, since this is your own creation, maybe we can go with it, with some minor modifications :-). Also, I don't think Bruce created it. It looks like the club did. It looks like he commented on it though. So, maybe IAGO can use your method, if it would work well, for live tournaments :-). I do agree with Bruce's comments that there is often not enough time to be meaningful. Perhaps you add 5 minutes back on the clock to what is left, then 4, then 3, and so on. Maybe even players can bid, as I suggested on time to pick sides. The idea of bidding for time adds more gamesmanship outside of the actual game, which is used to captivate people who don't play normally.
If I am playing in this system and I see we are heading for a draw, then I better a) offer the draw to start the new game or b) move fast to have enough time for the tie-breaker.
If a game has say 1 minute vs 1 1/2 minutes left, then I think it is a bit absurd to have this be the tiebreaker. How about the same amount of time is added to both sides, so the player who has the least amount of time would have a minimum of 5 minutes, while their opponent gets 5 more minutes added to their clock? Of course, you could lump all the time from all the ties into a final match, if it is needed, and give a reasonable amount of time for that.
A possible solution keeping the way I propose is to use a 3 or 5 second time delay in the tie-breaker should either player have less than 5 minutes on their clock.... something like that. Some experimenting can be done. There can even be a few different options.
As far as a last round thing, most players I know like to know where they stand throughout an event. So settling the score during each round is far more desirable than wrapping up the mystery after all rounds are done.
Given a choice between the 2 types of events... draw or drawless, I still might be inclined to choose the draw one. I think below GM level draws are typically not an issue and players do not seem to mind hard fought out draws. But I certainly would not object to the other (drawless) system.
Gary, your approach would be to use a Bronstein clock set to a very short time delay as a way to do overtime?
Bronstein is the original person to propose a time delay between moves, which is the basis of the 'Bronstein clock'. Fischer decided to take the clock and add time, and then to the countdown.
Gary Gifford wrote [2008-04-19] 'Hi Rich... Thanks for the update, I stand corrected.'
No, you do not. In their first match in London in 1834, De Labourdonnais defeated McDonnell, scoring 16 wins, 5 losses and 4 draws. The players alternated colors after each decisive game. De Labourdonnais played with the White pieces in the first four games, because games 1,2,3 were draws.
But in Kieseritzky-Horwitz, London 1846 they alternated colors in the 'modern' way, unaffected by the drawn game (number 11). Final score was 7.5-4.5 The fact that a variety of systems have been used in international tournaments from 1851 to 1866, would not change my opinion on the question before us, even if I knew what that question was.
The site I happened to find out about the 1/2 point for draws was wrong. I believe it is correct to say that this approach for draws is less than 200 years old, and only came about when Chess was attempted to be turned into a sport, faced with time constraints at the event and over the calendar.
51 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.